An "ah-ha" moment.

[dennybeall]

I have an idea why photography is slowly dying.
As a contribution to the charity I spent the better part of the day shooting an Open House at a new dog training facility, 115 or so shots. Got home and worked the process through Photoshop cleaning up, straightening a tad here and there and fixing a red eye so had 35 or so nice shots.
So the "ah-ha" moment!
I go to the clients Facebook page and there are bunches of crappy photos, crooked, parts cut off, poor focus, bad lighting but many of the same scenes I have, just crappy versions. All taken with iPads and cell phones and put up on the net through the phone network moments after being taken.
Frankly, I feel like just throwing all my shots away. Sure, mine are better and the trash can is not in the 3rd shot and all the people in the group shots have good expressions but I don't think the people will care. They'll just think; Oh, I've seen that picture already.

 

[astroNikon]

Yup, instantaneous photo gratification through social media which helps lower the expectations of photo quality.

I've felt that way many times shooting my kids soccer. Except I take much better action shots that are in focus, showing good action, and great shots .. versus all the misc junk.

 

[Light Guru]

I have an idea why photography is slowly dying.

Photography is ABSOLUTELY NOT dying. It is growing exponentially. More photos were taken today then were taken in the first 150 years of photography. I would hardly call that dying.

The only thing that's dying is people's appreciation of good photography.

 

[snowbear]

I don't feel that photography is dying, but it is getting away from being a craft.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

... but I don't think the people will care. They'll just think; Oh, I've seen that picture already.

So your "ah-ha" moment is just based on assumptions you believe to be true?

 

[PaulWog]

Playing devil's advocate here: Some people don't care all the time. We don't need amazing photographs for every single event, all the time, everywhere. Sometimes people just want a snapshot.

 

[robbins.photo]

I have an idea why photography is slowly dying.
As a contribution to the charity I spent the better part of the day shooting an Open House at a new dog training facility, 115 or so shots. Got home and worked the process through Photoshop cleaning up, straightening a tad here and there and fixing a red eye so had 35 or so nice shots.
So the "ah-ha" moment!
I go to the clients Facebook page and there are bunches of crappy photos, crooked, parts cut off, poor focus, bad lighting but many of the same scenes I have, just crappy versions. All taken with iPads and cell phones and put up on the net through the phone network moments after being taken.
Frankly, I feel like just throwing all my shots away. Sure, mine are better and the trash can is not in the 3rd shot and all the people in the group shots have good expressions but I don't think the people will care. They'll just think; Oh, I've seen that picture already.

Ok, so we destroy the internet and then lynch Al Gore so it can never be created again. Bam! Synergy. See, easy fix.

 

[Derrel]

The rise of the 24-hour news cycle, followed by the development of the internet, then the rise of smart phones concurrent with the rise of social media platforms that allow instant access and publish of photos and text: all of these things have, over the last 20 years or so, fundamentally CHANGED the way people look at and view, store, and share photos. IMMEDIATE satisfaction, IMMEDIATE viewing has become expected on social media platforms, as well as on the world wide web, and also in person-to-person sharing. Again, the actual "way people look at photography" has shifted to looking at photos very soon after the photos have been taken; there is NO LONGER ANY tolerance for "waiting five days for prints." That era is dead. Immediate pictures are now expected in many situations, since we now have MANY people carrying smart phone cameras with instant access to sharing.

 

[dennybeall]

Thank you, I appreciate the mostly interesting thoughtful comments. Not the one personal attack but that's to be expected.
A lot was left unsaid in the initial post and it was interesting how the responses varied. No question more photos are being taken considering the proliferation of cell phone and tablet cameras. Are those as good as used to be taken or as are still being taken by trained photographers? Some are but most don't seem to be from what I see. The point being that peoples expectations are changing to fit the new norm and that's changing just about every aspect of photography as we knew it.
Interesting times, glad I don't have to make a living from it anymore.

 

[pthrift]

My thought is this- there are now more people taking pictures. Is quality degrading? Maybe, overall, it is.

But the upside to more people taking pics is that the manufacturers (nikon, canon, et al.) have to notice and try to get at least some of these cell phone camera folks to go to maybe a p&s; or dslr; or etc.

That means they will (more than likely) make more affordable options. I mean; back in the early 2000s how much was a bare bones basic dslr? Vs now you can get a complete kit for $350 brand new.

Again- this doesn't draw the best people all the time but it does bring more people; more mfgr support, and ultimately more options to the market.

That also means you have more people looking at photographs- granted again; they don't all have the "eye" of an art gallery shopper, but they are looking.


The way I see it business is booming. From a pro standpoint I'm sure there is a completely different outlook than what I have; but from my amateur seat; I'm loving it-

 

[baturn]

Well, in my experience the folks who snapped photos with their phones (standing right beside me), later, when comparing photos, still say " Wow, you must have a really nice camera".

 

[Designer]

Frankly, I feel like just throwing all my shots away.

I think you should give your photographs to the facility directly, and suggest that they SELL them to raise money. If anybody wants better pictures, then they can pay for them.

 

[photoguy99]

What is the value in a 'better' photograph of some ordinary event? What is the purpose of a photo of some kids soccer game, and does it particularly serve that purpose to be 'better'?

This is a serious question. Albeit rhetorical.

 

[bribrius]

what is lost is the romanticism. Hard to say something is dying when there are more photos than ever before. The craft or romanticism might be dying or lessening perhaps.
you used to go to your local hardware store, pick out your item (they only had one version to pick from) and bring it home. Then you went to your big box store which had five versions to pick from. Then you went online which had fifty versions. While the quality is dropping in the majority of all these versions from the original they have become more accessible, lower cost, and still serve the general principle purpose for which they are made.

If one seeks the hand made, hand crafted or highest quality they can still be found. But for the majority of people, and uses such a item is unnecessary as the cheap throw away version does near the same task. Minds have changed toward results that does not revolve around quality but rather price, accessibility, and serving and purpose.

 

[photoguy99]

The snapshot has always been with us. For documenting the everyday the professional's edge, and the interested amateur's edge, was speed. Mom's instamatic would not get its film developed into next January.

This has changed. Mom and her iPhone have the speed edge now. And nothing else matters. Your $2000 rig and Photoshop aren't adding any value that anyone cares about - or ever did care about.